The Charlatans EOSP Fall 2002

1. The CharlatansEOSP Fall 2002

2. People Project Overview Key Requirements Process Description Risk Driven Approach Technical Progress Project Artifacts Lessons Learned Next Steps Questions Agenda Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

3. Clients Daniel Plakosh Scott Hissam Mentors Cliff Huff Grace Lewis Team Members Matt Bass Dawei Gu Lalit Jina April Navarro Wei Zhang People Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

4. BOB JILL Project Scenario Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

5. WQV-10 WQV-3 Project Overview • Software Applications • Palm Application • PC Application • Design and Implementation Report • Project and Requirements Overview • Software Design • Knowledge Documentation • Decision-Making Documentation Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

6. Key Requirements – Palm Application • Functional Requirements • Control Watch Remotely • View Images • Edit Images • Beam Images • Other Requirements • Performance: image compression /decompression should take 6 seconds or less • Portability: needs to run on any device that supports Palm OS 3.1 thru 4.1 Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

7. Key Requirements – PC Application • Functional Requirements • View Image • Import/Export Image • Other Requirements • Portability: must be compatible with Windows 9X, WIN2K and XP platforms Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

8. Key Requirements – Documentation • Knowledge Documentation • Knowledge Baseline • Knowledge Discovery • Knowledge Gained • Decision Documentation • Development Strategy • Work Breakdown • Technology Issues • Process & Selection Criteria Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

9. Tailored TSP Process • Team Goals • Defined Roles • Cyclic Development • Launch • Track • Postmortem Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

10. TSP Cycles • Cycle 1 – Learn Basics I • 09/17 to 10/01 • Learn TSP process • Learn to work effectively as a team • Cycle 2 – Learn Basics II • 10/02 to 10/29 • Learn Palm basics • Identify risks • Produce required documents • Cycle 3 – Learn Technology • 10/30 to 11/26 • Gain a better understanding of the technologies • Produce required documents Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

11. Risk DrivenApproach Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

12. Example – Requirement in RFP Watch can be controlled remotely via the IR (Infrared) interface and communicates control information over IrComm (Infrared Communications Protocol) using a proprietary protocol Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

13. Example – Risks of the Requirement • IrComm – Don’t know Infrared protocol. May not be able to meet requirements • Proprietary Protocol – Watch specification is in Japanese. May impact schedule. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

14. Example – Prioritized List of Risks Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

15. Example – Mitigation Strategy • Translate the watch protocol documents • Prototype watch protocol Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

16. Example – Risk Mitigation in Cycle 2 & 3 • WBS# 2.6.1 – Investigate watch protocol specification • WBS# 3.6.1 – Research on IrDA/IrComm programming • WBS# 3.6.2 – Prototype watch protocol • WBS# 3.6.3 – Translate watch protocol specification Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

17. Example – Risk Evaluation in Cycle Post Mortem • IrTran-P (Infrared Transfer Picture Specifications) is not supported by Palm SDK • Knowledge of Palm OS file management is needed. • Knowledge of JPEG is needed. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

18. Technical Progress • Hardware Comparison & Selection • Examined 35 models – 7 models obtained for development • Programming Language and Development Environment Comparison & Selection • Examined 13 languages – C/C++ selected • Examined 14 tools – CodeWarrior for Palm v8 selected • Palm OS Version/Feature Survey • Palm OS Emulator (POSE) Survey • Translation of Japanese Watch Protocol Specifications Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

19. Risk Reduction Prototypes • Watch Protocol Prototype • Completed and exercised 6 watch features • Discovered new challenge – IrTran-P is not supported by Palm SDK • IrComm Prototype • Completed and exercised ExchangeManager • Discovered new challenge – IrComm was not introduced to Palm OS until v3.3 • JPEG Compression/Decompression Prototype • In progress • Discovered new issue – Free JPEG Library from IJG requires extra porting work for Palm OS Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

20. Project Artifacts • Team Notebook • Statement Of Work (SOW) • Software Project Management Plan (SPMP) Draft • Software Requirement Specification (SRS) Draft • Risk/Issues List • Risk Management Plan • Configuration Management Plan (CMP) • Quality Assurance (QA) Plan • Meeting Process • Planning Documents • Knowledge Baseline Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

21. Lessons Learned • Keep it simple • “Better is the enemy of good enough” • Process pays off • Knowledge sharing is critical • Communication is important Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

22. Mid Semester Presentation Suggestions • Use resources available • Risk management expert at the SEI – Ray Williams • Architecture resources at the SEI • Palm programming experts from past studio teams • High level architecture • Focus development • Develop draft architecture • Non-technical risks • Identified during risk evaluation Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

23. Next Steps – Spring 2003 • Transition to new team roles • Design System Architecture • Develop Software Design • Develop Test Plan • Continue work on prototypes Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

24. For more information, please visit our web site at http://dogbert.mse.cs.cmu.edu/charlatans/ Questions? Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

25. Team Name "Software Engineers are charlatans.  They set deadlines, but they are always late.  They agree to a budget, but they always ask for more money.  They promise quality, but they always ship with bugs...“ – Dawei We admit this and we accept the name, but we are going to redefine it!  Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

26. Team Goals • Work effectively and harmoniously as a team. • Effectively use software process and software engineering techniques to deliver a high-quality product on time. • Expand technical knowledge base and skills. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

27. Team Roles – Fall 2002 • Team Lead – Matt Bass • Planning Manager – Dawei Gu • Process/ QA Manager – Lalit Jina • Development Manager – April Navarro • Support/ Client Manager – Wei Zhang Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

28. Team Roles – Spring 2003 • Team Lead – Wei Zhang • Planning Manager – Lalit Jina • Process/ QA Manager – Dawei Gu • Development Manager – Matt Bass • Support/ Client Manager – April Navarro Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

29. Top 5 Risks – Technical • We do not have a complete understanding of the requirements. As a result we may not understand what the client wants, and we may deliver the wrong product. • Meeting the hardware requirements and feature requirements may be technically infeasible. • We currently have no selected IDE. This may impact schedule. • Watch specification is in Japanese. This may impact schedule. • We currently lack Palm programming knowledge. This may impact schedule. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

30. Top 5 Risks – Non-Technical • Team members may work on tasks other than what the team expects. May cause resentment and impact schedule. • Team does not always communicate well. This may cause resentment. • We are currently using a tailored TSP without having considered other alternatives. We may not effectively use process to develop our product. • We haven’t always effectively shared knowledge gained. This could impact the expansion of our technical knowledge and impact our schedule (redundant effort). • We have clients’ hardware. If this hardware is lost, or broken, we will have to pay for it, and it may cause the team to become upset. Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

31. Risk Definitions • Risk • the possibility of suffering loss • Risk Statement • a description of the current conditions that may lead to the loss • a description of the loss or consequence • Risk Management • access continuously what could go wrong (risks) • determine which risks are important to deal with • implement strategies to deal with those risks Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

32. Risk Attributes • Impact • the loss or effect on the project if the risk occurs • Probability • the likelihood the risk will occur • Timeframe • the period when action is required in order to mitigate the risk Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

33. Risk Attributes • Impact: • Catastrophic: would not repeat experience • Critical: repeated, but painful • Marginal: uncomfortable • Negligible: not painful • Probability: • Frequent: 90% + • Probable: 51% - 90% • Improbable: 10% - 50% • Impossible: 0 - 10% • Timeframe: • Near: next month • Mid: next 2-4 months • Far: >4 months Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP

34. Risk Prioritization – Risk Exposure Charlatans – Fall 2002 EOSP